Storage Performance Development Kit (SPDK)
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lance Hartmann ORACLE <lance.hartmann at oracle.com>
To: spdk@lists.01.org
Subject: [SPDK] Add Jenkins job for periodic (nightly?) test run against upstream DPDK stable?
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:43:55 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DCD6D83D-0069-4355-AF0D-2E3558EAD8CB@oracle.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1851 bytes --]


Group,

I recently had a sideband chat with Jim regarding our SPDK testing with the DPDK, and he urged I open this up to the email list for more discussion.

When a Linux distro produces SPDK package rpms, they satisfy the DPDK dependency via a specified stable DPDK release from upstream that has been packaged.   However, on the run up to each SPDK quarterly release, we are constantly building and testing against the SPDK's fork'd copy of the DPDK (as a git-submodule) on which we often (virtually always?) have our own patches.   While this works fine for a development perspective as we work toward the next SPDK release, it's problematic when the time arrives to produce new SPDK packages because they will be built against a pristine DPDK stable release which very likely is not identical with what we have been testing against.   When I described this with Jim, he agreed that it would be an excellent idea to augment our SPDK Jenkins setup with some tests which would run against the latest "pristine" (i.e. upstream stable) DPDK release.   With that in place, when the time arrives to produce new SPDK packages, we will have gained the testing confidence of having validated running with the exact version of the DPDK against which the SPDK packages will have been built (and will run alongside at runtime).

Having said all that, I did float another idea on how we could, if we really needed to, produce SPDK package rpms based on the combination of a stable DPDK upstream release and our own collection of patches to it.   The rpm packaging system natively supports such a build, but as you might quickly deduce it comes at the cost of additional maintenance efforts which can become very unpalatable, esp. when/if some of our patches are never accepted/merged into the official upstream DPDK tree.


--
Lance Hartmann




             reply	other threads:[~2019-02-11 23:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-11 23:43 Lance Hartmann ORACLE [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-02-12 12:10 [SPDK] Add Jenkins job for periodic (nightly?) test run against upstream DPDK stable? Luse, Paul E
2019-02-14 13:39 Luse, Paul E
2019-02-14 14:31 Harris, James R
2019-02-15 14:26 Latecki, Karol
2019-02-15 18:25 Lance Hartmann ORACLE
2019-02-15 19:46 Harris, James R
2019-02-15 21:19 Lance Hartmann ORACLE
2019-02-15 21:25 Harris, James R

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=DCD6D83D-0069-4355-AF0D-2E3558EAD8CB@oracle.com \
    --to=spdk@lists.01.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox